Procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings do not automatically invalidate the inquiry unless they result in prejudice to the employee's ability to defend themselves.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, an Assistant Grade II, in the service of the Kerala Public Service Commission while he was working on deputation in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC). The allegation against him was that he had misappropriated Rs.2,26,335/- while working in a retail shop of KSBC at Bison Valley in Idukki District by falsifying and manipulating the sales records. After the formal enquiry, he was found guilty and was awarded with a punishment of dismissal from service. Against the order of dismissal, he approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, but it evoked no positive result, hence this original petition.

2. On 24/04/2009, when an inspection was conducted in the retail shop of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not remit Rs.5,000/- from the sale proceeds of 22.04.2009, and it was reported to the parent department. The KSBC further decided to take the stock in view of the above disparity. When the stock was inspected by the audit team, it was found that there were several short remittances on various days totalling Rs.2,26,335/-. Thereafter, on 17/07/2009, the Managing Director of KSBC reported to the respondent that the petitioner had misappropriated Rs.2,26,335/- from the proceeds of sale from the retail shop by falsifying the records. Based on the said report, the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department and placed under immediate suspension. A criminal case was also registered against him in Rajakkad police station for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the petitioner had been absconding for some time, and later, he was arrested and remanded to prison. These are the allegations upon which the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner.

3. On 22.06.2021, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 charge memo. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply to the charge memo on 8.7.2011 by contending that he was innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that everything was the brainwork of the Warehouse Manager of the KSBC and DAT staff to tarnish his reputation. A Joint Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and he conducted a formal enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. He submitted Ext.P3(a) enquiry report on 01.08.2011, finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. On 10/08/2011, the respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain why he should not be imposed with a punishment of dismissal. The petitioner submitted Exts.P4 and P5 replies to the show-cause notice on 25/08/2011 and 29/08/2011, respectively, denying all allegations against him. On 12/10/2011, the respondent issued Ext.P6 order imposing the punishment of dismissal against the petitioner, with effect from 3/8/2011. Though the petitioner submitted an application for review of the said order by raising various contentions, the respondent reiterated its former decision, as per Ext.P8 order dated 18/02/2012.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

5. The petitioner challenges the disciplinary proceedings on the following grounds:

The entire disciplinary action was vitiated for error of law and violation of principles of natural justice, as the charge memo and the memorandum of allegations are vague and imprecise. The charge memo contains only bald allegations, and the details of misappropriation are not mentioned either in it or in the memorandum of allegations. The charge memo was issued on 22/06/2011 and an enquiry officer was appointed on 24/06/2011, even without waiting for the explanation from the petitioner against the charge memo. The entire enquiry proceedings were finished in a single day by the enquiry officer and he flouted all the mandatory procedural requirements while proceeding with t